Launched on Aug. 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old.

Seriously though, at the end of it's design life (15 years) why was this not pushed into the satellite graveyard?

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

So in that video, what's the white stuff streaking thru the frame like rain continuously?

I think those would be background stars. As the satellite is geosynchronous, it will appear in a fixed position in the sky, relative to earth, and the stars will appear to move with the earth's rotation.

Launched on Aug. 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old.

Seriously though, at the end of it's design life (15 years) why was this not pushed into the satellite graveyard?

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

Or am I missing something?

The replacement was delayed until next year or the year after. Once that was up and operating this one would've been shoved into the grave yard. Just like almost anything else, you keep the old one around until you have a new one even if that means using something longer than you'd originally intended.

Launched on Aug. 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old.

Seriously though, at the end of it's design life (15 years) why was this not pushed into the satellite graveyard?

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

Or am I missing something?

It's the reactive If it still works, then there's no need to buy a replacement mindset that seems to be an universal trait in management.

Wanna bet that if that satellite wouldn't have sploded they would have pushed its lifespan even further than the additional 3 years past its expiration date?

Soon enough we will have totally incapsulated ourselves in debris and won't have to worry about Van Allen radiation, gamma rays in open space or anything else of that nature. For a couple hundred years, we'll be stuck here on Earth thinking about how nice it would have been if we'd been stewards, rather than dominionists...

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

Well, realistically it would take us centuries of launching multiple orders of magnitude more stuff than we do now to get to anything approaching "crowded". GEO is 42k kilometers in circumference, and that's assuming all of the satellites are in the same plane, which they aren't. Space is big, incomprehensibly big.

Uncontrolled/untracked space debris is an issue, but just some derelict satellites won't be. Debris in LEO is a bigger issue, because while it will degrade in orbit much faster than stuff in GEO, there's also a lot more stuff down there and it's all in motion relative to each other, unlike stuff in GEO.

It was the second satellite in about two months to experience such an issue in geostationary orbit. On the morning of June 17, another satellite operator had already lost at least partial control of a large satellite in geostationary space. It was not obvious back then what was happening but in hindsight, we should have looked closer. Things might have turned out a lot different if we only had a few more weeks of preparation. Anyways, that was how it began.

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

Well, realistically it would take us centuries of launching multiple orders of magnitude more stuff than we do now to get to anything approaching "crowded". GEO is 42k kilometers in circumference, and that's assuming all of the satellites are in the same plane, which they aren't. Space is big, incomprehensibly big.

Uncontrolled/untracked space debris is an issue, but just some derelict satellites won't be. Debris in LEO is a bigger issue, because while it will degrade in orbit much faster than stuff in GEO, there's also a lot more stuff down there and it's all in motion relative to each other, unlike stuff in GEO.

So eventually will we form a protective shield around our planet with all the debris?

Only if you approach from the equator

I learned from watching the Empire Strikes Back that the galaxy is essentially a 2-dimensional plane. The ships leaving Hoth HAD to fly straight through that cluster of Empire ships - they had no choice.

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

Well, realistically it would take us centuries of launching multiple orders of magnitude more stuff than we do now to get to anything approaching "crowded". GEO is 42k kilometers in circumference, and that's assuming all of the satellites are in the same plane, which they aren't. Space is big, incomprehensibly big.

Uncontrolled/untracked space debris is an issue, but just some derelict satellites won't be. Debris in LEO is a bigger issue, because while it will degrade in orbit much faster than stuff in GEO, there's also a lot more stuff down there and it's all in motion relative to each other, unlike stuff in GEO.

I get what you're saying about the area involved, but I think you may have overlooked "optimal positioning".

There are only so many places up there, in area, that are optimal to service a particular region. You wouldn't want to put a satellite that services, say, North America over Hawaii, for example, since it's not optimal for covering North America.

In that respect, while there's a LOT of area up there to plunk a geostationary satellite, the areas where they're best placed are, functionally, limited. Anyplace else is "suboptimal" at best.

That rather cuts down on where you can stick things and still expect them to work well.

The article sayeth not, but I wonder if this particular satellite is anywhere near where the other one broke up. It only mentioned a previous one breaking up. If they're "optimally" positioned above entirely different regions, one may have nothing to do with the other.

Launched on Aug. 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old.

Seriously though, at the end of it's design life (15 years) why was this not pushed into the satellite graveyard?

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

Or am I missing something?

Satellites are, by design (not always in practice), life-limited by station-keeping fuel budget. Once you run out of fuel (not counting the rigidly-known amount required to boost to graveyard), you are EOL and you boost up to graveyard. The amount of station-keeping fuel required per unit time is only approximately known. If you can be more economical than predicted with station-keeping maneuvers, you can remain in service longer than the design lifetime of the satellite.

Generally, satellites do not exit service by breaking, or losing communications with control, or anything like that.

Launched on Aug. 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old.

Seriously though, at the end of it's design life (15 years) why was this not pushed into the satellite graveyard?

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

Or am I missing something?

Satellites are, by design (not always in practice), life-limited by station-keeping fuel budget. Once you run out of fuel (not counting the rigidly-known amount required to boost to graveyard), you are EOL and you boost up to graveyard. The amount of station-keeping fuel required per unit time is only approximately known. If you can be more economical than predicted with station-keeping maneuvers, you can remain in service longer than the design lifetime of the satellite.

Generally, satellites do not exit service by breaking, or losing communications with control, or anything like that.

Why a graveyard and not a de-orbit? It's pushing it higher just putting the debris problem somewhere else?

Would it be possible to clear this space by launching sub orbital air tanks? By this I mean push a pressurized tank of air up to that altitude (high enough, but not fast enough to stay in orbit) and have the tank dump it's load of air (create a gas cloud that will hopefully hold together for a few minutes) so that any debris passing through the cloud losses enough velocity to drop into a short lifespan orbit.

Launched on Aug. 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old.

Seriously though, at the end of it's design life (15 years) why was this not pushed into the satellite graveyard?

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

Or am I missing something?

Satellites are, by design (not always in practice), life-limited by station-keeping fuel budget. Once you run out of fuel (not counting the rigidly-known amount required to boost to graveyard), you are EOL and you boost up to graveyard. The amount of station-keeping fuel required per unit time is only approximately known. If you can be more economical than predicted with station-keeping maneuvers, you can remain in service longer than the design lifetime of the satellite.

Generally, satellites do not exit service by breaking, or losing communications with control, or anything like that.

Why a graveyard and not a de-orbit? It's pushing it higher just putting the debris problem somewhere else?

You need a huge burn to drop from geosynchronous down to the upper atmosphere. Until/unless solar sails or electrodynamic tethers become a mature tech and allow for a fuel free way to change orbit doing so is prohibitively costly.

So eventually will we form a protective shield around our planet with all the debris?

Only if you approach from the equator

I learned from watching the Empire Strikes Back that the galaxy is essentially a 2-dimensional plane. The ships leaving Hoth HAD to fly straight through that cluster of Empire ships - they had no choice.

Launched on Aug. 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old.

Seriously though, at the end of it's design life (15 years) why was this not pushed into the satellite graveyard?

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

Or am I missing something?

What you're missing is that design life and use life are two different things. When a satellite gets near its design life it gets evaluated and a decision is made to continue using it or not. Much like the Curiosity rover on Mars that has far exceeded its initial lifetime and continues to be used because its still working.

Launched on Aug. 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old.

Seriously though, at the end of it's design life (15 years) why was this not pushed into the satellite graveyard?

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

Or am I missing something?

Actually, this is pretty common. Satellite makers are very conservative on their estimated lifespans and satellites often function well past the estimated expiration date. (I worked for a satellite company)

Would it be possible to clear this space by launching sub orbital air tanks? By this I mean push a pressurized tank of air up to that altitude (high enough, but not fast enough to stay in orbit) and have the tank dump it's load of air (create a gas cloud that will hopefully hold together for a few minutes) so that any debris passing through the cloud losses enough velocity to drop into a short lifespan orbit.

"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."

They say that they're moving customers to other satellites as precautionary measure. Also, they wonder if it will be possible to move the satellite to graveyard orbit.

And at the same time, on the video you can see as if the bullet has hit the thing, that large parts of it went away from the satellite, and it is left tumbling (brightness is changing rapidly and randomly).

I think that their statements are pure marketing BS. This thing is dead.

Why a graveyard and not a de-orbit? It's pushing it higher just putting the debris problem somewhere else?

The delta-V requirement for a graveyard bump is ten or fifteen meters per second, versus about 1500m/s for deorbit from geo. Presuming hydrazine thrusters at about 230s Isp, this is a mass ratio (mass when ready to decommission / mass after decommission burn) of about 1.007 versus a mass ratio of about 2.0.

I am curious at what point space debris issue will push governments to get together and get tougher on industry on deorbiting or facilitating service missions?

At the end of their life satellites end up in two positions: a parking orbit if in geo-stationary or de-orbit if in LEO. From what I can tell LEO satellites aren't always deorbited as they should be and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of this requirement being enforced. At the same time we are putting more and more objects into orbit with a limited life time and if we aren't careful my end up with the Kessler effect.

The impression is governments really having been enforcing responsibility and at the same time aren't making it easy for entities actually wanting to help solve the problem. I fear that it will take a series of catastrophes and economical damage before they step up to the plate. As an example imagine a situation where telecommunications is hampered, navigation satellites aren't around or radar satellites aren't able to help with weather forecasting.

BTW Two websites which might be of interest for looking at satellite orbits and space debris:

Launched on August 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old. The company had hoped to squeeze more operating life out of it until 2018 or 2019, however, before a replacement satellite could be launched.

There needs to be international penalties for doing dumb shit like this. Everything you put into space will eventually fail. So by not pushing the sat to graveyard orbit at EOL (15 years) you all but guarantee that you will create a mess in GEO. As long as there are no penalties for doing so companies are incentivized to take risks like this.

Launched on Aug. 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old.

Seriously though, at the end of it's design life (15 years) why was this not pushed into the satellite graveyard?

If operators are going to always wait for the satellite to fail before moving it, GSO is going to get pretty crowded with failed satellites because the company was trying to get a few more years out of it.

Or am I missing something?

Satellites are, by design (not always in practice), life-limited by station-keeping fuel budget. Once you run out of fuel (not counting the rigidly-known amount required to boost to graveyard), you are EOL and you boost up to graveyard. The amount of station-keeping fuel required per unit time is only approximately known. If you can be more economical than predicted with station-keeping maneuvers, you can remain in service longer than the design lifetime of the satellite.

Generally, satellites do not exit service by breaking, or losing communications with control, or anything like that.

Why a graveyard and not a de-orbit? It's pushing it higher just putting the debris problem somewhere else?

The DeltaV to deorbit from GEO would be astronomical. The graveyard orbit is beyond anything useful and space is big. Junk is space isn't that big of a problem. Junk in crowded valuable orbits is a problem. Of course having a graveyard orbit doesn't do any good if the company owning the sat just decides to not put it there and flies the bird until it falls apart in the sky. The EOL needs to be more strongly enforced with heavy penalties for companies that don't move sats to the graveyard orbit.

From what I can tell LEO satellites aren't always deorbited as they should be and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of this requirement being enforced. At the same time we are putting more and more objects into orbit with a limited life time and if we aren't careful my end up with the Kessler effect.

Most LEO sats are not intentionally deorbited drag will take care of them. The FAA requires sat operators to show that the sat will self deorbit within a specified number of years (5 IIRC?) after end of life. They have to run simulations which show based on the effect of mass vs surface area that it will deorbit within FAA requirements. They also need to show that major components will be destroyed in reentry and not survive to the surface.

Some sats with very high mass to surface area ratios may need to take active steps to aid the deorbit like use some propellent to drop the perigee into higher drag atmosphere or rotate solar arrays to create a larger wetted surface to increase drag but those are the exceptions you would need a pretty dense sat to not just fall out of the sky in LEO due to drag. I mean if you put a cylinder of tungsten in LEO it would stay up for a relatively long time but most sats don't have a mass to surface area ratio that high.

The Kessler risk is more for MEO orbits where the drag is minimal and objects up there can stay up there for longer than recorded human history. Also unlike GEO where everything is essentially at different positions in the same orbit, in MEO you have lots of orbital intersections increasing the chance that long lived junk will eventually hit other long lived junk turning into more long lived junk in more intersecting orbits.

Launched on August 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old. The company had hoped to squeeze more operating life out of it until 2018 or 2019, however, before a replacement satellite could be launched.

There needs to be international penalties for doing dumb shit like this. Everything you put into space will eventually fail. So by not pushing the sat to graveyard orbit at EOL (15 years) you all but guarantee that you will create a mess in GEO. As long as there are no penalties for doing so companies are incentivized to take risks like this.

See the above comments about design vs use EOL. It's likely that this sat was performing acceptably and there was no need to move it to the graveyard.

It was the second satellite in about two months to experience such an issue in geostationary orbit. On the morning of June 17, another satellite operator had already lost at least partial control of a large satellite in geostationary space. It was not obvious back then what was happening but in hindsight, we should have looked closer. Things might have turned out a lot different if we only had a few more weeks of preparation. Anyways, that was how it began.

Or so...

Some tried to warn us...

Seriously. I have read way too much alien invasion sci-fi/horror to have not read this article's headline without a shiver.

Launched on August 12, 1999 with a 15-year design life, the Indonesian satellite is presently 18 years old. The company had hoped to squeeze more operating life out of it until 2018 or 2019, however, before a replacement satellite could be launched.

There needs to be international penalties for doing dumb shit like this. Everything you put into space will eventually fail. So by not pushing the sat to graveyard orbit at EOL (15 years) you all but guarantee that you will create a mess in GEO. As long as there are no penalties for doing so companies are incentivized to take risks like this.

See the above comments about design vs use EOL. It's likely that this sat was performing acceptably and there was no need to move it to the graveyard.

Yeah performing acceptably until oops it isn't and now there is no way to ever move it to a graveyard orbit. The reality is anything operating beyond intended design life is taking a risk. Right now there is no penalty for taking that risk so why not just operate the sat until it falls apart in the sky.